Allarie Edit

The youthful energy has died down since 2008, and their lack of consistency may portray their political sincerity.

While wandering around the East Village the other day, on an unusually warm and calm afternoon, I casually stopped over twelve people appearing youthful to ask them if they voted in the mid-term elections last week. The first ten said no. More than half blamed their voting deficiency on a lack of time and knowledge; however, each one of them had an assured opinion on Obama’s performance in the White House. And all of them, who were of age to vote two years ago, did vote in the presidential elections.
Professor Varon, a historian at the New School University, recalls that the highest number of voters of a specific group comes out when they first get the right to vote and then numbers decrease with time, this holds true in the cases of women and African Americans. Therefore, since 1972 was such an exception, the youth turn out in the 2008 elections was the highest ranking ever in a typical election year. Then just two years later these passionate youths are nowhere to be found.

William John Cox, a philosopher and political analyst, recorded that one third of the people between the ages of 18 and 29 blame Obama himself for failing to deliver on his promises that he offered during his campaign. Promises President Obama spoke of such as hope, change, and new kind of Washington immediately enchanted the youth. According to William John Cox, the youth’s quick support and then blame of one specific person lends hand to the notion that the youth are disillusioned; as the political system of the United states prevents that an individual will ever be entirely at fault.

Even in comparison to previous years, 2010’s youth vote turn out was significantly low. Mark Bauerlein, a political analyst and writer, remarks that in this mid-term election 20.9% of the youth aged people voted, compared to the 2006 youth vote rate of 25%. President Obama and other well-loved democrats, such as Bill Clinton and Vice President Biden, made appearances at various universities to impress the importance of voting. However, as the political analysts Keli Goff admits, voting is just far less intriguing without Obama on the ballot. Or as Mark Bauerlein suggests: in order to be inspired to vote, the youth must be entertained.

Young people have the tendency to vote when the political sphere emanates the pop culture sphere, when politics arrive where the youth are and are present in the pop culture activities in which the youth already participate; such as music festivals, TV shows, and sporting events. During my walk in the East Village of New York City, I talked to many non-New Yorkers, many immigrants, and even a couple who were not yet eligible to vote, and each one of their eyes lit up when I mentioned the word Obama. The expression in their eyes did not originate from complete approval or a solid understanding, this excitement entailed not much more than recognition of a household name. I suppose that it simply makes people feel good to share a connection. The president of the United States is a celebrity, and how great it is that one can proudly say while they are watching TV, “I voted for that guy.” In many ways it is a form a self-gratification, to know that you put in your two cents in what happens in the big world of Washington. Especially in regards to the youth’s understanding of politics, the attention is minimally paid to the issues and system of politics, but to the figures and happenings of the political world, as if each event marks a new episode on primetime CW.

In a recent Rock the Vote poll, 83 % of the youth believed that they have the power to change our country. So here the contradiction lies: the youth believes in the importance of the vote, but do not vote regularly. They have an opinion, yet they put no action behind it. This same poll also recorded that 69% of the youth are more cynical than they were two years ago. Throughout my brief interviews on the streets, after the word Obama was mentioned, the words following were far less enthusiastic than the expression upon hearing his name. Most people claimed they were disappointed, or shook their head from side to side, as if to say: “well so, so but I feel badly admitting that I am not all together pleased.” Then, after a bit more inquiry, my interviewees drew a blank when they were asked what exactly about Mr. Obama’s presidency has not met their expectations. I received generic responses, such as: healthcare, the war, and we are still unemployed. All of these are valid issues, but I have a feeling a foreigner could have learned the same thing from the in-flight news crossing the Atlantic.

Gary Meisel, a historian and former active member of youth politics, believes that the youth must either be inspired by tragedy to get involved in politics or have the naive hope for immediate change. He explains that the youth has always been somewhat apathetic and when they get involved, they often have a romanticized and unreal vision of what can be accomplished by the American political system. He pinpoints two recent events where the youth felt extreme danger that served as a catalyst for their sudden engagement, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Gary Meisel claims simply that younger people are typically more impatient for change and thus more easily "disillusioned.”
The disillusionment of the youth is not an entirely new concept. Professor Varon, a historian at The New School University, explained to me that President Kennedy inspired the youth by his embodiment of youthful energy, and the youth backed him so strongly that they finally became an integral aspect of the voting arena. As positive as this movement was, he still describes it as youthful idealism. The youth focused on the issues, such as social justice and the environment, rather than on a specific party or how the political system functions. It is idealistic to focus on an issue because then the issue is viewed separate from the political system, rather than as an aspect of politics that must work with the system in order to change.

The youth can be understood as poorly informed. Said plainly by Mr. Meisel: “Many Americans do not fully appreciate how Washington works and, if they are drawn in by an issue or two, they are frequently disappointed with the way the system works.” The disillusionment is created because the youth are only knowledgeable on the surface level and naively expect immediate change in Washington. The fast pace of the campaign trail exhibits further misunderstanding, as everyday Washington does not operate so quickly. In our society today the political updates and news is constantly thrown in our faces and at such a high volume, it is almost unmanageable to navigate. Steven Peterson, a professor of politics and public affairs and Penn State University, remarks on this issue: " Often times people will listen to commentators whose views they agree with. Given the fragmentation of cable that means you won't hear other views. Some of us pay attention to info we don't agree with anyhow by being able to choose who you listen to, people are less likely to hear opposing perspectives, less likely to have a full sense of what's at stake of important issues of the day."

The youth possess all of the tools to be well informed, and have all of the resources to become involved and knowledgeable, yet they do not seem to be making use of these materials. With all of these new live action media outlets like live bogging, on-the-scene international reporting, mobile updates and live news feeds, that the youth of today have access to so much that the comprehension level lacks depth. My sixty something year old uncle remarks: “I believe the youth of today has a much more difficult time discerning the truth of all that is available. Probably because it wasn’t being presented in real time, there was a certain amount of verification vetting that occurred with the official news sources of my youth that is not at all present in today’s information. Even the evening news on TV had a more balanced presentation of the “news” than today’s shows that tend to only focus on the sensational.”

My uncle has the knowledge of experience and time on his side, such attributes that the youth simply cannot acquire. The youth could potentially acquire accurate resources though, and there is absolutely nothing preventing their engagement to be realistic. That would, however, require the youth to be more serious. And since an MTV intern states: “We just wanted to have fun with this election. The Presidential election was so overwhelming in so many ways, we decided that 2010 should focus more on the music.” I do not foresee that happening anytime soon.